East/West Reunification- a consideration

[Peter_J]

IF there were a merging of East and West, it is very possible that their Liturgy would be allowed to continue as a “Rite”.

Really, you’ve just too kind.

(Now someone will walk up to me and say “Pardon me, but your sarcasm seems to be showing!” Then of course I’ll be very embarrassed when I realize that it is. )

 

[Surnaturel]

Except the Pope will never give up his claim to power.

Pope Benedict XVI already suggested that in a united Church the pope would retain his authority in the West but would not have jurisdiction over particular churches of the East; rather, his primacy would be one of ‘presiding in love’ among other duties of primus inter pares such as presiding over a council. And, furthermore, Benedict abdicated the papacy which is a true expression of humility and service to the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Pope Benedict XVI already suggested that in a united Church the pope would retain his authority in the West but would not have jurisdiction over particular churches of the East; rather, his primacy would be one of ‘presiding in love’ among other duties of primus inter pares such as presiding over a council. And, furthermore, Benedict abdicated the papacy which is a true expression of humility and service to the Church.

Depends what he means by this. If Eastern Catholic Churches are a model, this means that the Pope controls pretty much every territory around the world except Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Egypt and small sections of India.

 

[Surnaturel]

Depends what he means by this. If Eastern Catholic Churches are a model, this means that the Pope controls pretty much every territory around the world except Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Egypt and small sections of India.

Eastern Catholic Churches are not the model for a united future Church. It is, however, the model in the present schism, and even then it is a developing model.

The Pope would,'of course, retain his jurisdiction of the churches of the West, just as Rome always has.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Eastern Catholic Churches are not the model for a united future Church. It is, however, the model in the present schism, and even then it is a developing model.

The Pope would,'of course, retain his jurisdiction of the churches of the West, just as Rome always has.

Hi Surnaturel, your dialogue is breath a of fresh air here that deals with the present ecumenical efforts than the historical questions and reasons why Orthodox and Catholics can never be united.

Please allow me the hypothetical question? Let’s say this model proves good fruit. What if the “particular” Church’s in the East? which the Pope would have no jurisdiction, came over into the West and started establishing and founding their Eastern Church’s by evangelizing the West? What do you think would be the rule of thumb from such a future hypothetical situation? Would the pope have jurisdiction? Or will these remain autocephalous Church’s independent of Rome?

I introduce this because history records Constantinople removed the Latin Church’s at one time, and later rejected any Latin Church’s from entering or being set up in Constantinople.

Do you know if the model proves successful, from the hypothetical future, would the Roman Catholic church have the freedom to establish once again Latin Church’s in the East? And autocephalous Church’s in the West?

Could this invite more social problems in the Catholic populace, if One authocephalous church begins to allow artificial contraception to western Catholic members, when the Roman Catholic Church denounces artificial contraception? Would such a situation call for any jurisdiction in regards to Social Catholicism issues?

Peace be with you

 

[ConstantineTG]

Eastern Catholic Churches are not the model for a united future Church. It is, however, the model in the present schism, and even then it is a developing model.

The Pope would,'of course, retain his jurisdiction of the churches of the West, just as Rome always has.

The Pope retaining his jurisdiction would mean what I just said, that he controls at least 2/3 of the entire planet.

 

[dvdjs]

controls at least 2/3 of the entire planet.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, maybe make that 2/3 of Christendom.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, maybe make that 2/3 of Christendom.

Of the planet. Of course that is regardless of how many people are actually Catholics (or even Christians) in said jurisdictions. But basically, Rome claims all of Western Europe, the entire North and South America, Australia, all of Africa outside of Egypt and Ethiopia, and the rest of Asia east of India and Iran and south of Russia/Siberia.

Maybe it is more than 2/3s

 

[Tomdstone]

Pope Benedict XVI already suggested that in a united Church the pope would retain his authority in the West but would not have jurisdiction over particular churches of the East; rather, his primacy would be one of ‘presiding in love’ among other duties of primus inter pares such as presiding over a council. And, furthermore, Benedict abdicated the papacy which is a true expression of humility and service to the Church.

Would the Roman Catholic Church give up the docrine of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff when speaking ex cathedra? Because the Orthodox Church does not accept this teaching and they have said that they want unity in doctrine before any reunion could take place?

 

[Surnaturel]

The Pope retaining his jurisdiction would mean what I just said, that he controls at least 2/3 of the entire planet.

In a united Church, the Pope would not demand jurisdiction over Orthodox Churches in North America or Asia, only the Latin churches there within, which are many. My hope would be that the Pope sets the Catholic Churches of, lets say, Africa, Asia, Latin America as autonomous churches under the Mothership of Rome, in which further details and canons would be developed for understanding the relationship in the Western tradition. North America and Western Europe would remain under supreme jurisdiction of the Pope.

 

[Surnaturel]

Would the Roman Catholic Church give up the docrine of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff when speaking ex cathedra? Because the Orthodox Church does not accept this teaching and they have said that they want unity in doctrine before any reunion could take place?

The Pope would never renounce infallibility as heretical. Rather, if there were to be an agreement, infallibility, from the RC perspective, would be nuanced as exercisable in times of schism when the the head (Rome) is severed from the body. How that would or could be interpreted by a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical council is beyond my pay grade.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Pope would never renounce infallibility as heretical. Rather, if there were to be an agreement, infallibility, from the RC perspective, would be nuanced as exercisable in times of schism when the the head (Rome) is severed from the body. How that would or could be interpreted by a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical council is beyond my pay grade.

I believe that the Orthodox teach that papal infallibility is heretical and that they would not accept it. Also, some Orthodox have many other concerns about RC teachings and practices. Such as for example, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, baptism by sprinkling, devotion to the Sacred Heart, statues, litugical dancing before or during Mass, clown Masses (etc.), perceived lack of reverence at some Roman Masses, Catholic marriage annulment procedure, artificial birth control, strict distinction between mortal and venial sin, imposed celibacy, women leading Communion services, and others.

 

[Tomdstone]

Pope Benedict XVI already suggested that in a united Church the pope would retain his authority in the West but would not have jurisdiction over particular churches of the East; rather, his primacy would be one of ‘presiding in love’ among other duties of primus inter pares such as presiding over a council. And, furthermore, Benedict abdicated the papacy which is a true expression of humility and service to the Church.

That’s not what the catechism of the Catholic Church says:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

 

[ConstantineTG]

In a united Church, the Pope would not demand jurisdiction over Orthodox Churches in North America or Asia, only the Latin churches there within, which are many. My hope would be that the Pope sets the Catholic Churches of, lets say, Africa, Asia, Latin America as autonomous churches under the Mothership of Rome, in which further details and canons would be developed for understanding the relationship in the Western tradition. North America and Western Europe would remain under supreme jurisdiction of the Pope.

The thing is if we are to stick to the ancient canons (and the Orthodox do, I doubt we will agree to a reunion with an understanding that the ancient canons no longer apply) then the correct model of the Church is one bishop per territory, and there are no overlapping territories. That is why in North America for example, the Eastern Catholics are still considered in the diaspora basically because these are RC lands.

 

[Peter_J]

Of the planet. Of course that is regardless of how many people are actually Catholics (or even Christians) in said jurisdictions. But basically, Rome claims all of Western Europe, the entire North and South America, Australia, all of Africa outside of Egypt and Ethiopia, and the rest of Asia east of India and Iran and south of Russia/Siberia.

Maybe it is more than 2/3s

So then I guess you guys should stop your missionary activity in e.g. Japan?

 

[Surnaturel]

That’s not what the catechism of the Catholic Church says:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

All Catholics in Communion with Rome agree that the Pope is the visible source of unity. Universal power is not qualified: that is, it doesn’t say what it consists of. Most RC theologians interpret supreme jurisdiction of the pope as the exercise of the Pope in the West and the universal dimension as president of the college of bishops and universal pope (who presides with a primacy of love and has certain duties the correspond to that role, rather than jurisdiction over particular churches not in the West).

For perspective, many of these roles have been assumed by the EP Bartholomew I which you find on his website.

 

[Surnaturel]

I believe that the Orthodox teach that papal infallibility is heretical and that they would not accept it. Also, some Orthodox have many other concerns about RC teachings and practices. Such as for example, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, baptism by sprinkling, devotion to the Sacred Heart, statues, litugical dancing before or during Mass, clown Masses (etc.), perceived lack of reverence at some Roman Masses, Catholic marriage annulment procedure, artificial birth control, strict distinction between mortal and venial sin, imposed celibacy, women leading Communion services, and others.

No one is asking the Orthodox to accept infallibility as binding on the EO/OO Church. Perhaps it would be exercised either a) as the Pope’s ability to teach dogmatically in the Western Church when necessary for which such dogma is binding only on the West. The EO could interpret that as they want, but they don’t have to endorse it at all. Or b) the Pope when speaking as a mouthpiece for the Church only with the consent of his brother bishops is understand as infallible.

Purgatory I don’t anticipate as being an issue that would prolong schism.

From an RC view, the EO position on remarriage and contraception is deeply problematic and would definitely need to be further discussed.

The IC would be seen as a local tradition of the West, but an agreement, from the RC POV, would have to be reached that Mother Mary was sinless.

Statues and RC baptism will have to be accepted as far as I can see it, since they belong to the ancient West. I do, however, think that the West could and would move closer to the Orthodox tradition of Chrismation.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

No one is asking the Orthodox to accept infallibility as binding on the EO/OO Church. Perhaps it would be exercised either a) as the Pope’s ability to teach dogmatically in the Western Church when necessary for which such dogma is binding only on the West. The EO could interpret that as they want, but they don’t have to endorse it at all. Or b) the Pope when speaking as a mouthpiece for the Church only with the consent of his brother bishops is understand as infallible.

I appreciate the irenicism of this post, and I think you’re onto something.

I agree that the Orthodox churches acceptance of infallibility needn’t be a prerequisite for reunion. However, from the Catholic perspective, dogma defined by a pope or a council (including post-schism) is universally true, it´s not ‘binding only on the West.’ In other words, from the Catholic perspective, the Orthodox are in error on this point, but the error need not impede full communion (i.e., it’s not heretical).

The fact that many Orthodox deny the divine institution of the Petrine primacy is a larger problem, since this came directly from the Lord.

I agree that dogma such as the Immaculate Conception and others from the post-schism council could be ‘re-received’, that is, framed in different theological language.

But the difficulty, of course, is not finding Eastern equivalents that the Catholic Church could accept. The West is quite accustomed to ‘translating’ its doctrine into other cultural milieux.

The difficulty is that the Orthodox laity (or the Athonites, for that matter) are not willing to accept that Catholic formulae are not heretical, and no number of shared documents can change that. The obvious example is the filioque, which the West has tried to explain for over a millennium.

 

[Peter_J]

Would the Roman Catholic Church give up the docrine of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff when speaking ex cathedra?

No. I believe the furthest Rome would be willing to go is to say that we don’t know how many (if any) ex cathedra there have been. And even that might upset some Catholics.